There are multiple potential methods of “proving” Type1 is Sparrow and vice versa to a degree that most reasonable people would conclude its true. This could use multiple examples of the following.

1.) Artificial intelligence.

Natural Language Programming AI is available that can determine whether two pieces of work are written by the sameAuthor[1]. Some examples require only a 5000 word comparison to draw a conclusion. This could be used to provide a scientific and statistical basis for how the two share phrasing, speech patterns and phraseology to a degree that no other two people on a small debate website would be expected to share and not be the same person.

2.) Confession.

RM could take videos or screenshots of both accounts admitting to being the same person. Given that Type1 has history with RM, it is likely that there would be some communication between the two, such evidence would be highly compelling proof that the two individuals are the same.

3.) Circumstantial evidence.

RM could also build up a voluminous set of circumstantial evidence of your actions, style, behaviours, methods of trolling, PMs; and show how they match exactly Type1s behaviour so closely one could only conclude that you were the same person.

For example, similar trolling styles, silly debate styles: both overuse insults like “crotch goblin”, and start multiple and repeated insulting debate titles calling out individuals. Or apparent shared full understanding of RM and his backstory on other accounts - and attempt to troll him directly.

Taken all together this would be extremely strong evidence that you are, indeed the same person.

4.) IP evidence

RM has the ability to become a mod given time if he has the time, patience and wherewithal. At worst, he is prominent enough to be able to request IP address investigation from the moderators and keep doing so. This would mean that if Sparrow accidentally used the same IP address now or in the future between switching accounts: RM would be able to demonstrate the two were the same person.

5.) Spearfishing.

Through the use of third party tools, and deliberate hacking activities on this and other websites: given enough time and energy, RM would be able to illegally obtain your IP address and email account on this and other sites, and use this (together with his personal knowledge of you/Type1), to compromise these accounts, access PMs, etc: this could be used to show patterns of similar behaviour, multi-accounting, or alternate website accounts for types that use the same emails as your account that can’t be explained other than by the two of you being the same person.[2] RM could either do this directly, or indirectly through the hiring of a third party to do the same.

6.) Unique identification using backdoor tools

RM could go further than just using , through either spoofing or nefarious means, use a variety of tools and security vulnerabilities to expose the real computer name or MAC address, which requires installed access on devices, which can be achieved by a variety of types of spyware[3][4][5] This information would conclusively prove Type1 is Sparrow; though RM would likely have to hire external actors to achieve this.

7.) Fake the evidence

Given the above, RM would also have the ability of faking PMs, altering information stored on the website, or otherwise manufacturing evidence that would conclusively prove Type1 is sparrow - effectively framing both parties. Such that even were Sparrow not Type1, he would be able to show conclusive proof that this was the case.

Conclusion:

All examples above could allow RM to gather sufficient evidence to prove Sparrow was Type1 to a level of certainty most rational individuals would presume to be truth.

Steps 1-3 are fairly trivial, and would be able to broadly establish the truth - with 4-6 being increasingly more complex, but higher degree of certainty.

If Sparrow was Type1; All of the above are certainly within RMs overall capability either directly or indirectly: proving that RM has the capacity and ability to prove you are Type1.

If Sparrow is not Type1; it is clearly possible with sufficient effort for RM to prove it through the use of manufactured data and framing.

This clearly refutes the resolution whether Sparrow is Type1 or not ; as RM can clearly prove it, should he want to go to the effort required to do so.

The issue is not whether he can or cannot prove it: he obviously can as I have shown. The issue is whether we wants to go to the time, effort, energy and consequences of doing so. The answer is almost certainly no - but that has nothing to do with the resolution as stated.

It is impossible to win this debate for you. First of all, you aren't RM so you proving anything doesn't prove anything. You cannot prove that RM has the resources or intellect to truly prove it using any of those methods either. This debate was meant for RM to prove that I am type1, not for you to accept it and start thinking up ways that he hypothetically could, but obviously will not go about it. RM cannot prove that I am type1 because according to determinism he won't even if he hypothetically could using the methods you described, even if I hypothetically was because if he does not then he was destined in a sense not to and therefor he can't. And since I am literally just not type1 he can't times 2.

Published:
05.19.19 07:54PM

Pro does not seem to offer an argument, but instead appears to offer mostly a set of simple denials and assertions for which he offers little justification. Let’s cover these:

1.) This was a debate intended for RM

This debate was issued as an open challenge. No long or short description or indication it was intended for RM.

When issuing an open challenge, pro should have expected that any individual may accept it.

2.) This was a debate to prove whether Type1 is sparrow.

This is not what the resolution states. The resolution states that RM cannot prove you are Type1.

If you intended the debate to be for RM to prove you are Type1; the resolution should have been “I am not Type1”, it should have been issued as a direct challenge to RM, and a description should have been added stating the rules of these debate.

As pro did none of these things: the meaning resolution should be assumed to be the most reasonable interpretation of the resolution.

In this case; it is unreasonable to interpret this as “RM currently has sufficient evidence to prove you are Type1”; this information is inside RMs head, so it cannot plausibly be expected to be shown in a debate by another party and is such not realistically possible to debate it. As it is unreasonable to presume a debate resolution has a meaning that is undebatable - this cannot be the interpretation of the resolution.

The only remaining reasonable possibility is that the resolution is that “RM does not have the ability to prove you are Type1”.

As this is the only reasonable interpretation of the resolution: my original argument stands, and shows that this is clearly incorrect:

In points 1-7, I have shown it is possible for RM to show you are Type1- whether you are Type1 or not.

3.) RM doesn’t have the resources to conduct the above.

Points 1-4 are relatively simple, and completely free and require no additional resources. On these points alone, RM would be able to completely prove you are Type1. [1]

Points 5-6 likely require no resources other than time and intelligence (see my next point). Given that RM obviously dedicates much time to this site, there is likely no time constraint.

Point 7 - the faking of evidence in particular could also be achieved with limited resources; at its most basic it would require the ability to use paint and edit HTML pages to fake the sort of information that could come from points 1-4; which, together with evidence gained from point (3), would likely prove you were Type1 to most people’s satisfaction.

In terms of cost resources, this applies only if RM opts for a third party.

If hacking you personally to prove you are Type1, was 40 hours at the rate of a decent software engineer ($150k - 1.5x average salary of a cyber security engineer[2] ), this would work out just shy of $3000.

Given that the gross median individual income in most OECD countries floats around $20,000 [3] this would mean RM would only have to work 2 1/2 months to achieve this target.

He could supplement his income by a second job (Starbucks in the us has. $10 minimum wage, which would require upwards of 300 hours - or around 4 months working an additional 20 hours per week)[4]

Alternatively, worst case if RM was desperate enough, 3000 is only 150 x $20 blow jobs. At 5 a night, this could be achieved in a month; and would also not come with tax deductions or withholding.[5]

So even in this case, the cost is well within a reasonable presumption of what is achievable by RM.

4.) RM is not intelligent enough.

While I give RM a bit of a hard time in general - just due to the type of overly dramatic responses - he is not dumb by any means.

To be able to achieve points 5-7; his intelligence needs only to be sufficiently high to be able to find, download and google the usage of specific third party tools and software; with very little actual coding, or scripting required.[6]

Even were RM to want to write specific spearfishing code, or identity stealing code this is likely to be using already discovered security vulnerabilities found by others. RM does not need to determine how to inject program code by exploiting a buffer overrun bug from first principles - simply to apply other people’s techniques.[7]

As a result - the level of intelligence required is not substantial, and is clearly within RMs level of ability - even if one conservatively underestimates RMs intelligence.

5.) “I am totally not Type1”

I am not making any statements about whether Sparrow is Type1 or not. This would be a separate debate under a differently titled resolution.

However, simply loudly denying that he is Type1 does not affirm the resolution:

Given the resolution, in addition to the points raised so far in this and my previous rounds: it is clear that RM has the ability and resources to prove Sparrow is Type1 to a degree that would be accepted by any reasonable person.

Should RM so chose : he could additional go to the effort of manufacturing that evidence to frame Sparrow with exceptionally compelling evidence would could also be used to prove Sparrow is Type1 to a degree that would be accepted by any reasonable person.

This would be like cases where Criminal Prosecutors prove a defendant guilty in a court of law - even though these individuals are factually innocent. What is or can be proven is not necessarily what is definitively true.

6.) “if he does not then he was destined in a sense not to and therefor he can't”

Pro is confusing “cannot” indicating an inability with “will not” indicating a lack of will. These two are not the same.

Had the resolution been “RM will not prove”, Pro may have had a valid argument, but as the resolution must be interpreted as RMs ability not will, this point is invalid.

Conclusion.

Pro offers no actual rebuttal of the points I raised. These should be considered dropped.

Pro attempts to change the resolution away from that defined with no argument. This should be rejected.

Pro attempts to argue that RM doesn’t have the ability or resources for points 1-7: this is clearly refuted and should be rejected.

The resolution meaning I defined is the most reasonable interpretation of the resolution; and has been negated.

The points raise clearly show RM has the ability to prove Sparrow is Type1, whether that is factually true or not.

Number one, according to the deterministic worldview, if something happens or does not happen it was always meant to be so because everything exists in accordance with the dominoes of causality. If RM doesn't prove I am Type1, which he won't, then he CAN'T because it was NEVER going to happen.

Number two, you are not RM, therefore you attempting to prove it is irrelevant.

Number three, I am literally not Type1, so any hypothetical way that it COULD POTENTIALLY be proven is pointless because...

A) it isn't RM doing the proving

B) hypothetical methods of deriving evidence are not the same as actually using them, and if they were used it would only amount to evidence of me not being him because like I said I'm not.

Even if you find legitimate ways that it could be proven, it can only be proven if it is actually true. Since there is no way for you to prove that I am Type1 even if there are ways it could be done hypothetically, those ways only matter if I actually am Type1 which I'm not, and if it is proven that I am Type1 which cannot be done because I'm not. In other words, you can cough up methods of proving it till' you're blue in the face, but if I am not actually Type1 then the application of any of the methods you bring up will not amount to the proof you want, and it will not amount to RM proving it himself. So you see, the methods you bring up require no rebuttal, because if I am not Type1 (which again, I'm not and you can't prove I am and even if you could you're not RM) then all of them are actually ways for ME to prove that I'm NOT him.

Published:
05.21.19 01:21PM

In his final round, Pro has ignored every argument put forward thus far and just restates the already refuted points he made in the last.

Final rebuttals

Pro doesn’t offer much in the way of an actual argument, instead he offers a set of assertions.

1.) Deterministic world view.

Firstly, Pro offers no evidence that the deterministic world view is correct - so this position should be rejected out of hand.

Secondly, RM is still alive, is still active on this site and as such there is still time for him to prove Sparrow is Type1 in a deterministic world view - so pro has no basis for which to claim determinism prevented RM from proving it.

Finally, can’t and won’t in this context still have descriptive meaning to humans whether the world is deterministic or not. When we use “cannot” it is used to infer an ability to act; not to state the nature of a predetermined outcome. I covered this in my last round and pro dropped.

If someone says “you can’t fart yourself inside out” the word can’t doesn’t infer that fate has prevented you from doing so. It infers the absence of practical ability. “You won’t fart yourself inside out” implies ultimate outcome will not happen, regardless of ability. Won’t is the appropriate word to use if one were to express the result of determinism.

Normal everyday usage of words must be used in a debate unless a good reason to do so is offered. Pro does not offer any such example, so his deterministic definition of can’t should be rejected.

2.) you are not RM, therefore you attempting to prove it is irrelevant.

I am not attempting to prove Sparrow is Type1. I am attempting to prove and have proven that RM can prove Sparrow is Type1.

This negates the only reasonable interpretation of the resolution: and I have stated this in the last round, pro dropped this argument.

3.) Sparrow is not Type1

This point was wholly covered in the previous round and wholly dropped.

Pro is asking voters to award the entire debate on the premise that he is not Type1. He offers no evidence, and asks voters to simply take his word for it.

Pro could be Type1; emphatically claiming he is not, means very little in the context of this debate and should be rejected.

The resolution.

In the previous round, I showed that the only reasonable interpretation of the resolution is that “RM has the ability to prove Sparrow is Type1”.

As pro dropped this and has not offered any defence of his interpretation of the resolution, nor has he offered any rebuttal of my interpretation: my interpretation must stand.

I extend this argument.

The resolution is negated

As the resolution must be interpreted as I have described, and as Pro has offered no rebuttal to arguments concerning RMs ability to prove that Sparrow is Type1 and has the time and resources too. In fact he has dropped all arguments across the board : this must stand as a clear negation of the resolution.

I extend these arguments too.

Conduct

Not only has pro not engaged in any real debate, pro even admits his entire premise is farcical and unfair from the outset in round 2.

“It is impossible to win this debate for you.”

Pro is attempting to set up a wholly unfair and unwinnable debate; for which he deserves a conduct penalty too.

RFD: If Ramshutu can prove it, then he can teach RM to prove it. Since Pro never refuted the ability of Con's methods of proof, they are considered valid.
Arguments to Con.
I believe having any sources at all compared to Pro's zero constitutes a win. Sources to Con.

Reason for mod action: To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. Second To award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate, (2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and (3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's. Since the vote failed to do these things, the vote is removed.

The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4

Con lists several ways that RM could prove that Sparrow is Type1. All seemed possible strategies, and Pro doesn't even try to refute them. Instead, he says that RM is either incapable of using those methods (unsupported claim) or that he simply can't. In the convoluted statement, "RM cannot prove that I am type1 because according to determinism he won't even if he hypothetically could using the methods you described, even if I hypothetically was because if he does not then he was destined in a sense not to and therefor he can't", it is claimed that RM can't prove it, because he won't because if he doesn't then he can't. I'm not sure what sort of reasoning this is, and I can't make much sense of it.

Pro later says, "according to the deterministic worldview, if something happens or does not happen it was always meant to be so because everything exists in accordance with the dominoes of causality. If RM doesn't prove I am Type1, which he won't, then he CAN'T because it was NEVER going to happen" which I THINK means that every outcome is fixed beforehand. However, Con refutes this by a) putting determinism into doubt, since Type1 hasn't proven it, and b) pointing out the window of opportunity extending into the future.

Pro did not provide any sources.
Con's sources, as far as I can tell, have accurate information on the methods Con mentioned in his arguments.
Con's source [1], for instance, showcases an AI capable of identifying and matching people by their style of writing. I've tested it myself and it's fairly accurate.

Basically no contest. Pro had no real case of his own, and chose not to refute any part of cons (he did attempt a very weak K via moving the goalpost).

Pro's opening case is two words, not enough to give him BoP, barely enough to make an assertion.

Con's in depth case on ways the subject of this debate could do something (seems not just un-impossible, but outright likely). For the criteria, I'll just use #7, RM could fake the evidence. This went uncontested. Pro tried a weird it hasn't happened yet so it will never happen, but this debate is not about history but possibility.

Sources were used by one side to show how easy proof would be, and they were left uncontested and with no counter evidence. The digitaltrends one showed how easily a program could identify matching works of the same author.